USCA11 Case: 22-11089 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2023 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-11089
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM SERNA-ARROYAVE,
a.k.a. Cuuper,
a.k.a. Cooper,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cr-00325-MHC-LTW-1
USCA11 Case: 22-11089 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2023 Page: 2 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 22-11089
____________________
Before JILL PRYOR, LAGOA, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
William Serna-Arroyave appeals the district court’s denial of
his motion for rehearing of its denial of his motion for jail time
credit. He argues that that the district court erred in calculating his
jail time credit because it failed to include all the time he served in
between his arrest in Costa Rica on July 3, 2019, and his sentencing
on September 21, 2021.
We are required to examine our jurisdiction sua sponte, and
we review jurisdictional issues de novo. United States v. Lopez,
562 F.3d 1309, 1311 (11th Cir. 2009).
A defendant shall be given credit toward the service of a
term of imprisonment for any time he has spent in official deten-
tion prior to the date the sentence commences that has not been
credited against another sentence. See
18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). In in-
terpreting § 3585(b), the Supreme Court has held that the Attorney
General, through the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), is authorized to
compute time-served credit, not the district courts. United States
v. Wilson,
503 U.S. 329, 333-35 (1992). Accordingly, a district court
cannot award time-served credit under § 3585(b). Id. Federal of-
fenders seeking credit for time spent in presentence custody must
first exhaust all administrative remedies through the BOP before
seeking review in federal court. Rodriguez v. Lamer,
60 F.3d 745,
747 (11th Cir. 1995). The procedures a defendant must follow in
USCA11 Case: 22-11089 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2023 Page: 3 of 3
22-11089 Opinion of the Court 3
this respect are set out in
28 C.F.R. §§ 542.10–542.16. United States
v. Lucas,
898 F.2d 1554, 1556 (11th Cir. 1990). Those regulations
require a defendant to, inter alia, submit an initial filing to an ap-
propriate member of staff at his correctional institution, see
28
C.F.R. § 542.14(c)(4), and then, if he is not satisfied, he can file a
motion under
28 U.S.C. § 2241. United States v. Nyhuis,
211 F.3d
1340, 1345 (11th Cir. 2000). Exhaustion of administrative remedies
is jurisdictional. Lucas,
898 F.2d at 1556.
We conclude that this issue is not ripe for judicial review be-
cause the record fails to show that Serna-Arroyave has exhausted
his administrative remedies before the BOP for review of credit re-
ceived for time served, and he also did not seek credit for time
served in a
28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition.
We thus vacate the district court’s order and remand with
instructions to enter an order dismissing the motion for lack of ju-
risdiction without prejudice so that Serna-Arroyave may exhaust
his administrative remedies.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
